The radical notion that women are adults

Let me state right off the bat that I like Matt Forney. He’s quite young, so I cut him an enormous amount of slack, given the quality of his female peers, but I think he missed a few key distinctions in his now gone viral post The Case Against Female Self-Esteem.o

I’m going to take them one by one, and hopefully show you that Matt is talking about young women, and that his arguments don’t apply to certain women, as they age. This is not NAWALT, but rather a mapping of the journey that most women will eventually embark upon, and it’s a journey that needs a few landmarks pointed out.

1. Most girls have done nothing to deserve self-esteem

That is true, but only when esteem is measured in terms of genuinely competing with men. Matt, like many observers – myself included – quite rightly points out that most of the real, hard work of running our world is done by men, but he ignores what genuine self-esteem in women looks like when they are NOT competing with men. And Matt acknowledges as much.

In the world of men, respect—and by extension self-esteem—is based on actually achieving something of worth or having some kind of skill or talent.

What is respect – and by extension, self-esteem – based on in the world of women?

The overwhelming majority of women will eventually become mothers, and being a good mother will become the principle source of a woman’s self-esteem. That is what fuels the so-called “Mommy Wars” – women desperately trying to justify their choices so they can think of themselves as good mothers. Single mothers insist they are good mothers. Working mothers insist they are good mothers. Stay at home mothers don’t really have to insist they’re good mothers, because simply being present is 80% of the job, but they will insist that their lives have meaning.

Here’s a wonderful article about the daughter of a feminist who has made the kitchen the focus of her life, with no regrets. Why the kitchen? Because it allows her to be a good mother.

Whenever a girl I’m talking to brags about how she’s “confident” and “strong,” I can feel my dick deflating like a punctured tire.

Matt is right to point out that the girls he is talking to have absolutely nothing to base their “strength” and “confidence” on, but that is very likely to change. I would not hesitate to tell Matt that I am both of those things, but I have life experiences to back that shit up.

I am a supremely confident mother. And I am incredibly strong, in an emotional sense. I can be utterly, stupidly exhausted and still have the mental discipline to respond with love and patience and maximum kindness. And that is not easy, trust me. When the baby has been up fourteen times with an ear infection and the older children are squabbling over who gets the Batman cereal bowl and who is gonna be stuck with Spiderman, it’s easy to scream at everyone and have them all in tears.

Does that sound trivial? That might be because you are a man, and you do not measure your worth in terms of kindness and patience. I’m not saying that all women are kind and patient – ha! My own mother was devoid of both those qualities. But I’m pretty sure she knows she was a shit mother for not having them.

A woman who is strong and confident in her abilities to be a good mother, and who demonstrably IS a good mother has every right to esteem herself highly. Confidence in genuine accomplishments that arise primarily from the fact of being a woman should be very attractive to any sensible young man.

The women Matt is talking about are bragging about accomplishments they don’t actually have, and that is the problem. It’s not the confidence, per se. What are you confident IN?

2. Insecurity is integral to femininity

Ay-yah. This one is tough. In my view, Matt is mistaking interdependence for insecurity.

This is emotional insecurity:

I was thinking about a couple of my past relationships when I had this epiphany; the girls I’ve loved the most were the ones who were the most insecure, the most emotionally vulnerable. When I first went on a date with the only girl I would have ever married, her hands were trembling in nervousness. She later admitted that she was openly intimidated by me and the idea that I found her attractive. She had been an ugly duckling in high school, forty pounds overweight and used to being ignored and mocked; I had met her shortly after she’d lost the weight, when she still viewed the world through a fat girl’s eyes.

This is interdependence:

Part of our identity as men based in women needing us, if not necessarily in a material sense, then in an emotional one, though material and emotional vulnerability often go hand in hand. That female insecurity is a crucial ingredient for unlocking our inner masculine instincts.

I am not an emotionally insecure or vulnerable person, nor have I ever been. The former fat girl is unsure of herself, intimidated and in need of validation, given her previous experience. That’s fine, but it’s not to be confused with being vulnerable on account of simply being the weaker sex. My husband is considerably larger than I am, and I am very much aware of how incredibly safe it feels to have his arms around me, his chin resting easily on my head.

Being emotionally vulnerable is insecurity. Being physically vulnerable is not the same thing. In fact, I would say that emotionally vulnerable women are more trouble than they’re worth. It might feel trigger feelings of superiority and dominance to begin with, and I’m the last person to deride those feelings in men – they are central to feeling masculine – but women who can’t command their own emotions? That shit gets old really fast.

I personally cannot stand emotionally vulnerable women. I hate the whole “let’s make everything about my shaky quaky feelings” bullshit that goes on with so many women. It feels to me like a power play, and I hate it. I consider myself very feminine and it has nothing at all to do with feeling insecure. I’m not insecure. Not in the slightest. That doesn’t mean I’m not dependent on my husband, because I very much am. I depend on him to take care of me in every way EXCEPT when it comes to handling my own emotional life.

And I think he’s grateful he doesn’t have to put up with regular weeping or sulking from me. He doesn’t have to constantly be on guard for when my wittle feelings might be hurt. They don’t get hurt all that often, and when they do, I open my mouth and say so.

If I’m not the center of a girl’s world, I’m not going to be in her world period.

Absolutely, Matt, but she doesn’t have to be an emotional fucking basketcase to justify making you the center of her world. In fact, it’s better if she’s not. A woman who has made a conscious, rational decision to make the person she loves the reason for her continued existence is a woman worth having.

3. Women don’t want to have high self-esteem

This is the kicker; in their bones, girls know that their toxic, feminist you-go-grrl ideology is a lie.

I agree, and the telling of that lie over and over again is one of my principal beefs with feminism.

Girls will all but die without masculine attention. Hell, I’m even starting to think that the feminist agita about “rape culture” is part of this as well. Pushing lies like the claim that one in three women will be raped during her lifetime and their constantly expanding the definition of rape are ways for feminists to indulge their desire for vulnerability in a way that doesn’t conflict with their view of themselves as “strong” and “empowered.”

This is an amazing insight, and one I hadn’t considered. Rape culture is not just about women’s fantasy of being irresistibly desirable, it’s also about being vulnerable in a way that doesn’t force them to confront the lies they tell themselves.

They want nothing more than for a man to throw them over his knee, shatter the Berlin Wall around their hearts, and expose the lovestruck, bashful little girl within.

And here again is where I disagree. This to me strongly suggests that you think a woman’s desire to be dependent on a man infantilizes her, and I would say the opposite. It matures her. Understanding that human pair bonds are complementary and not competitive is a key part of growing up, for both men and women. Joining your life to another in a way that acknowledges both individual strengths and weaknesses doesn’t make the woman a bashful little girl.

It makes her a sensible, powerful woman, who understands that it takes courage to be dependent on another person. You need faith, and trust and an immense dedication. And it’s not just women who are dependent. Men are dependent on women, too. We are the carriers for your children. We can make your lives a misery, or fill them with love and comfort and happiness in a way that nothing else can.

Men have to trust women in so many ways. Loyalty, fidelity, devotion, allegiance –none of those things can be guaranteed. You simply have to trust. To depend.

A big part of the problem in our modern culture is that men are still expected to depend on women for access to children, but women have no reciprocal obligations to depend on men. They can refuse to grow up. Refuse the obligations that come with responsibility. Refuse to be dependable themselves.

And that is the real problem. Confident women have no problem depending on men, because they know they themselves are dependable. It’s a mutually reinforcing system, and the basis for women’s self-esteem.

Legitimate self-esteem. Being a wife and mother is in the cards for most women. But they can’t base their self-esteem on that, because they are living a lie about what self-esteem really means, and by pursing “careers” and “independence”, they are shit mothers and crappy wives.

Ergo, this false sense of esteem.

So it’s not confidence and esteem that are the problem. Quite the contrary.

It’s the false basis for those beliefs.

Most women eventually see at least half of the lie. Once they actually have children, they understand that to be a good mother is all that will ever mean anything to them, but they’ve fucked up planning their life and leave themselves with no real choices. They can’t afford to be good mothers.

Fewer women come to see that marriage is the most valuable, important relationship they will ever experience in their lives, with fully half of all marriages ending in divorce, mostly for spurious reasons, like “I just don’t love him anymore”.

The two things women can legitimately base a sense of self-esteem on are precisely the two things feminism rails heartily against: depend on a man and raise the children you have together yourself.

Legitimate, justified self-esteem and confidence in women are undeniable virtues. How do you know if you are with a woman who is going to eventually grow into a person who understands the basis of her own worth?

Game isn’t going to do it, because you will never weed out the basketcases. You will no doubt get laid a whole lot, but when it comes to picking a reliable, dependable partner, the technique won’t help you much.

What will?

Good old-fashioned chivalry. Open her door. Let her go first. Pull out her chair. Walk on the outside. The second you get anything other than gratitude from a woman on that front, you know it’s time to move on.

Remember, you are not looking for a Princess who wants Daddy to take care of everything at the first hint of a pout. You’re looking for a Queen, who will rule by your side.

Sponsored links

s2c

on point 1 – you missed his point when he said his dick deflates like a punctured tire – he isn’t turned on by women who are smart and confident, not that he doesn’t respect them if they are indeed strong and confident. Guys are not turned on by women who are proud of being smart and confident – we want them to be feminine and demure.

Would his dick still deflate if he came across a woman who was confident for justifiable reasons, though? That’s my question. What if she was confident in her beauty, and justifiably so? Not vain, not constantly needing recognition and affirmation – just aware of her beauty and confident that she knows how to wield it without belittling or hurting anyone else?

s2c

On average, yes, Confidence is fine, outward displays of confidence are not usually attractive to guys.

Sarah

He wants a woman to be weak and fragile because it makes him feel big and strong. He’s insecure in his masculinity.

I don’t think that’s true. I think he is just so unaccustomed to thinking of women as being strong in the things that make them women, that he misses what true confidence looks like for us.

I’m a confident hostess, and I can, and regularly DO charm the hell out of my husband’s colleagues and clients.

Matt is missing the fact that confidence of that variety is very appealing.

The braggart “I graduated at the top of my Harvard MBA and then took a low-risk job sorting some rich family’s personal finances” is what earns the snark, and quite rightly so, if you ask me.

He thinks the alternative is “demure”. I’m trying to show him that’s it not.

Sarah

I fully agree with you about earned confidence. It seemed clear by his marriageable girl anecdote that a woman in control of herself doesn’t do it for him. Some people, men and women alike, are only sexually excited by holding all the power. Yours seems to be the type of marriage in which you and your husband respect the different types of power in one another.

First-time poster

Hi JB,

As you said yourself, Matt is quite young, and no doubt associates with similarly-aged girls – so what is the likelihood he has ever actually MET a woman such as you’ve described?

Reading his post again, it’s obviously that the concept is just too Black Swan to cross his mind. Being a similar age to Matt, I can understand why.

Result: he is literally incapable of having an opinion of them. Maybe they DO get him hot – nobody, not even he, will know until he meets one.

zykos

A man wants to care and protect a woman who is vulnerable the same way a woman wants to be cared for and protected by a strong man. Your self-esteem justifiably come from your experience as a mother (and a wife) but think about it: if that’s where a woman’s confidence comes from, it communicates the fact that you have already been a wife and mother. And what does that say to a 25 year old guy, who never had kids himself?

The idea that confident women should be attractive to men is obviously something feminists and betas want to be true, but it’s been mainly told by older people, usually with the excuse that “men who don’t like confident women are insecure about their masculinity”. Or that it’s a mark of immaturity. It might well be, but not in the derogatory sense. Younger men simply want youth, a woman who is not only young in age and appearance, but also in demeanor, and insecurity communicates “I’m inexperienced in life, I have a lot to learn, and I may want to learn and grow with you.”

So it may simply be that Matt and you are looking at the question from different points in time. I would say young guys want a slightly insecure woman to start their life with, who will then, as they both experience challenges and successes, grow more confident. But the man should always be more confident than the woman, that’s what fuels attraction after all.

MD

“Would his dick still deflate if he came across a woman who was confident for justifiable reasons, though? That’s my question. What if she was confident in her beauty, and justifiably so? Not vain, not constantly needing recognition and affirmation – just aware of her beauty and confident that she knows how to wield it without belittling or hurting anyone else?”

You need a new (old) word. Confidence, the word, the idea, reeks of masculinity. The female analogy to confidence, what you descibe above, is “grace”.

I read Matt as saying it’s the BRAGGING about being “smart and confident” that’s the turn off. On that I agree. Them as talk can’t do. A woman who is smart and self-confident enough to be pleasant attractice and interesting is a HUGE turn-on.

s2c

Bragging or not, outward displays of confidence can only be attractive if you are pursuing her, and usually not even then. Afterwards, they can feel like a challenge to a mans position of authority. It is emotionally uncomfortable when the ego is challenged.

This is not to say that without some confidence in a girl she wouldn’t get boring, nor is it to say that a man with a very solid ego couldn’t overcome it. But, the net effect of confidence on attraction is negative.

And I can’t believe any of you are even taking Matt Forney seriously on this shite. Confidence is sexy in a man or a woman because it means they have something to give you. Actively. Not just something for you to take. No relationship would be at all interesting or fun if it was entirely one-sided. Bleh, boring!

Cadders

You make some excellent points – ultimately if a man intends to have children he needs a women who has her shit together and can be relied upon raise the kids without checking on him for a decision every five minutes. Even now after 25 years together I still find myself stopping and watching, fascinated, as my wife interacts with the children (our own and those she childminds for). I know I could not do this stuff as well as she can. She knows it too and that is where her confidence comes from. It’s a lovely dynamic.

I would take you to task on a couple of points though. First this;

‘Men have to trust women in so many ways. Loyalty, fidelity, devotion, allegiance –none of those things can be guaranteed. You simply have to trust. To depend.’

Actually, men don’t *have* to trust women at all. They can simply opt out and have nothing or very little to do with women. Sometimes it is a conscious decision and sometimes it is by default because no women want them. But it is undeniable that this trend is increasing (e.g. herbivores, MGTOW). Whatever the root cause, in today’s world it is dangerous to assume that men have any obligations to women.

Secondly this;

‘Game isn’t going to do it, because you will never weed out the basketcases.’

Actually Game will do it. I don’t want to get into the tired old debate about what Game is, but I think you do not really understand it,or it’s effect on men (and to be honest I wouldn’t expect a woman to understand – no misogany here – it just the effects are fundamentally masculine in nature and have even taken me by surprise.). Ultimately, deep Game, properly internalised game, is about nothing more than being the best man you can be. The women and the money and the power and the status are mere side effects from the self improvement wrought by Game. When a man gets to that place his standards rise without him even being aware of it. Low quality women will simply not get through the filter.

anonymous

Been reading your blog lately and am absolutely amazed by it. It is very encouraging to me as a young man.

I am wondering if you could perhaps expand on the last bit of this article. I am 21 years old and have been in a few relationships, all with women who are my age. None are feminists, but have been brainwashed by it’s influence. I’m sure you can guess what kind of women they were. Childish, manipulative, etc. Needless to say, these ended badly, and I suffered infidelity in each one.

I have learned much since the last failed relationship, but only from the “game” crowd. There is some good stuff there, but very little on finding women with long term potential.

I guess my point is, chivalry is dangerous. All women expect it. Even the bad ones. How can you tell when a girl is worth it?

If she cruises past you through the open door without so much as a glance, she’s an entitled bitch.

If she looks you in the eyes and gives you a small smile or tips her head slightly, that’s saying “thank you”.

If she says “I can open my own door thanks” leave her on the sidewalk and walk away.

Dire Badger

The last bit unfortunately sounds a lot like ‘turn the other cheek so it can get slapped also’

I am certainly willing to risk my life for a woman, and have, many times. But be chivalrous?
I went down that road once. I will do what i am capable of doing, if it is not something that she is capable of doing, but I will NOT inconvenience myself for her.

Not anymore
never, ever again.

A strange woman is getting slapped around by a guy on the bus? Not my business. Not anymore.
Some woman struggling with a stroller and groceries? Too damned bad. Odds say she is a voluntary single mother. Not even worth a bullet.
pregnant woman on bus? If she is with her guy, I am likely to get up to make room for her. If not? she can stand until her feet bleed. You offer to help a woman put her groceries in the car, she will look at you like you are a rapist.

Perhaps I am broken. perhaps I have turned into the bad guy. It is certainly possible… but it’s sort of like the hero and the bad guy saying “You made me” and “You made me first”.

The ironic thing is, the more of a prick I become, the more girls try to drag me to their beds. The more of a scumbag I behave like, the more aggressive they become. I want to get laid by a stranger? I don’t bother showering or shaving for a day or two. Chivalry gets you nothing anymore, bot even the warm feeling of ‘doing the right thing’.

There is one exception… 70+ year old women still seem to appreciate your courtesy. THOSE I will go out of my way to help.

I am not sure that it is worth the test. the entire world has proven that men are still chivalrous and mostly safe.

I think a better test would be if SHE behaves in a chivalrous fashion towards a man.

my ‘ultimate test’ for a girl I want to DATE instead of simply screw is to tell her I do not have a driver’s license (true) and imply (but not say) that I do not have a car (false).

There is a mathematical method, though;

if she is willing to go on a ‘bus date’, or ‘Trax date’, that is a +1
if she is religious, +1. Mormon, +2 (I am not mormon but I like them)
if she is not grossly overweight +1, some (but little) makeup +1
offers to cook something +1, make a picnic lunch for an ‘outdoor date’ +2
if she’s a republican or libertarian +2, She talks about her dad in a positive way or calls her dad before a date +3
if she has a concealed weapons permit +5.

+5 or higher, and she’s worth the time to take on a real date instead of a quick trip to a hotel and an assumed name.

of course, there are immediate disqualifiers;
She is not a roleplaying gamer (pen and paper) -10
She, at any time, mentions her ‘ex’, especially in a sexual way -5
she has a college degree -5, liberal arts -10
she self-identifies as a ‘feminist’ -50

Seriously, I have found the best way to discover if a girl is ‘girlfriend material’ instead of ‘bed bait’ is to ask her about her dad.

Of course, I will never trust a woman again, but if i had used these rules twenty years ago, I might not be damaged today.

You open my door, and I serve you drinks or food or snacks or whatever.

I have never met a young man who wasn’t A) completely astonished at the fact that I will bring my husband a drink or make natchos or cut up apples without prompting and just bring them to him; and B) completely jealous.

Women are so dumb! Men are essentially very simple creatures. Food, drink, touch, soft hair, a pleasant smile.

99% of them will be totally smitten.

Dire Badger

The only thing I would add to that is “Don’t assume that we mean other than what we actually say.”
I would even posit that the key to a successful relationship is to assume that your guy is telling you the straight facts.

I have had a pet for almost 14 years, and I believe what made this ‘work’ far better than my earlier marriage is the simple fact that she assumes that I mean exactly what I say.

If she asks me how my day was, and I say “Sucked”, she knows I mean it was kind of boring and not worth talking about. And if she tries to ‘get it out of me’ she’s going to wind up gagged in the corner until I get around to spanking her. (Yes, it’s all consensual. mostly. but complicated.) A beer and a BJ are a thousand times better than ‘talking it out’

I disagree with ‘men are from mars, women are from venus’ because it assumes we are speaking different languages… we are not speaking different languages, It’s just that for the most part women, when they speak with men, generally seem to be having both sides of the conversation without us.

I do agree with the concept of ‘hostess’ though. it certainly fits with the concept of ‘feminine chivalry’ without having to stomp all over the toes of men’s chivalry. There are some common duties, though… such as caring enough to be freshly clean before a date (most feminists I have ever met had an adversarial relationship with hygeine) and being at least somewhat in shape (It takes a deliberate act to become Obese. I forgive slight pudginess, even slightly like a couple of extra pounds).
These are the very first clues that someone is willing to put others ahead of their own need for instant gratification, something that is pretty much mandatory for a real relationship.

I don’t know. Here in NY I still offer to help women with strollers carry them up or down the stairs in the subway. I’ve yet to encounter one who hasn’t been extremely grateful, if not effusive, about it…

Dire Badger

Sure they are grateful. remember that spider-man movie? peter let the crook run past, and the guy said ‘Thanks’ as the elevator doors closed, just before he popped off and shot uncle ben.

momentary gratitude is only meaningful by it’s absence.

freetofish

I think the western world in general has a generation or two of people who were raised to believe they were all special fucking sunshines. That just being themselves was something to be proud of and have self esteem over.

I think it all started when kids started getting a fucking medal just for showing up. back in my day when you ran a race or competition only those who came in 1st, 2nd or 3rd got anything. There was no “:hey thanks for showing up you loser” medals. We got grades based on your fucking work and tests, period. Not how well you got alone with fucking Sally two desks over. Did you answer enough math questions right? Great, you pass.

Hey Johnny, you can’t be whatever you want to be and no you can’t be President someday. You are too fucking dumb and your family lacks the proper connections.

If there is anything that will bring about the downfall of the Western (US) centric society we have now it’s this overwhelming unearned sense of self esteem and navel gazing about feelings.

Now, get the fuck off my lawn.

Feminism Is A Lie

This is a very good point and I think this is exactly why we have so many people (perhaps mostly women?) who are over-confident, but have nothing to show for it. What’s the point of teaching self-esteem when no one knows how to solve simple mathematical problems? Or how to write a simple essay? This just creates generations of stupid people who think they’re entitled to more than they’ve worked for.

A person’s confidence should come through being able to do the tasks assigned to them, through being able to recognise and correct mistakes and so on. This applies to all areas of life. What’s the point about bragging how independent and strong you are when you can’t cook simple meals to show your independence and ability to take care of your own (and others) needs? What’s the point of false confidence when you can’t admit to your mistakes at work and sort them out?

Tuesday

Excellent post. Especially:

“Remember, you are not looking for a Princess who wants Daddy to take care of everything at the first hint of a pout. You’re looking for a Queen, who will rule by your side.”

Barf city. I’d be puking over the rails. Also, I have an irrational fear of sharks. Sometimes I have to get out of the BATHTUB if the image comes too starkly to my mind and the bubbles are still really thick.

So not kidding.

What was I saying about being mentally stable?!?!

But a log cabin?

Oh, heaven. My dream house! Huge stone fireplace, hottub on the back deck, falling snow, a beautiful Shiraz and a flannel robe to wrap up in.

No, I’m not against kids valuing themselves, but we’ve been going about it wrong. The self-esteem movement is attempting to teach our kids that they should be proud of themselves just for being themselves – that being worthwhile and good is a birthright; something they deserve, and should get just because they are a unique snowflake.

It’s creating generation upon generation of unhappy, self-absorbed do-nothings that think that the world is being unfair in calling them useless when they are exactly that.

The self-esteem movement should be based on actions. We should be teaching our kids that if they want to be valued, that they need to be valuable; that a person’s worth is based on their actions, not their uniqueness as an individual.

The latter leads to an entitled mentality that causes them to lash out angrily at any criticism, and sets them up for failure in the real world, which adheres to the rules of the former.

I don’t think the self-esteem issue is a problem with women – it’s a problem with our society. We should not be training our kids to feel entitled to feeling good about themselves, regardless of whether they are a piece of shit or not. How exactly does that help the kid, or society as a whole?

As for the vulnerability thing – he can have his insecure basketcase women. I’m not interested. I think that one boils down to personal preference. I like my women to be confident and happy and able to function without having me reassure them every two seconds. Yes, I want to be the center of her world (and her mine) but that doesn’t require insecurity – on the contrary, I think it requires the utmost confidence in one’s decisions to commit so fully.

As for the desires of women, and not wanting high self-esteem, I disagree. I think that this statement is a relic of his being a man and having a different definition of self-esteem. He bases it off of action, no doubt, but because he is a man, likely off of action in the form of tangible accomplishments. Build a house, design a gizmo, paint a car… He sees what gives him his esteem, understands that women, at heart, don’t desire those things, and then draws the moral that women don’t desire self-esteem, and he is wrong. He is missing the fact that women desire high self-esteem, they just don’t get it from the same things he does. Like you said, JB, motherhood, for instance. Or being beautiful. And so forth, and so on…

I think there is value in balance. I think the self esteem movement has its good points in that it gives people value as humans. That value and the knowledge that I am someone of worth to other people makes it so suicide has never been a consideration in my head. But that basic value needs to be given more of one.

I think the step we are missing is the ability to help people learn talents that make them useful. Right now we kind of teach knowledge in a lackluster way that makes it rare for a kid to find their passion in school. They have to learn it later when they intern or stumble upon it. The fact Sonny Moore, aka Skrillex, was only able to get so far by dropping out of school and solely working on music rather than being introduced to interning with an available musician in high school means schools are failing at their job.

Schools are supposed to give you the skills to succeed. As it is, they give you several different skills and hope one of them sticks. That is hardly a way to do it. There needs to be motivation and part of that is to not only stop devaluing teachers to the point they can’t teach their subjects with any sort of esteem or talent of someone who deliberately went into it… But the return of a classroom that will not punish a kid if they focus a little more on one subject. Hopefully that is coherent.

No, I’m not against kids valuing themselves, but we’ve been going about it wrong. The self-esteem movement is attempting to teach our kids that they should be proud of themselves just for being themselves – that being worthwhile and good is a birthright; something they deserve, and should get just because they are a unique snowflake.

See to me, this isn’t bad if it’s “done right”.

I’ve always seen positive (and not “high”) self-esteem as valuing yourself and being relatively comfortable who you are. Basically being happy with what makes you….you. Now if some of your characteristics are bad then that’s not something to be proud of, of course. I wouldn’t say that it’s about being good and worthwhile as a birthright. As for being proud of yourself for being yourself, I wouldn’t say that good self esteem is about that but more about not being ashamed of what makes you you. Like if a boy likes to cook, he shouldn’t be ashamed of that, nor should a girl be feel ashamed or odd for liking video games and anime.

A man proud of being able to cook, taking your example, has something to be proud of himself for: ie, as I said above, HE HAS REASON TO ESTEEM HIMSELF HIGHLY.

Just because some men don’t see the value in cooking, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to, and be proud of his abilities.

Here’s my example, which I will use because it fits my situation, so that I can show you what I mean more clearly.

I dislike the fashion industry. I think it is a bunch of worthless navel gazing that doesn’t really influence what people in the real world wear all that much. Fads come and go, and the fashion industry seems to chug along in spite of all of it.

Despite the fact that I think the fashion industry is a joke, a man that has made a name for himself in the fashion industry still has reason to have high self-esteem, because regardless of whether I think his accomplishment is meaningful or not, there are people that do, and HE thinks it is, too, and is proud of that. He is entitled to esteem himself highly because he’s worked to achieve something and has done so. It matters not whether I agree that his “something” is meaningful or not. He’s earned it.

I am against these folks that have nothing to show for their life, and in fact, have been a net negative for the rest of society as a whole, demanding “respect” and having high self-esteem simply because they exist. It doesn’t work that way, but we’re teaching our kids that it does. How unfair is that? That for the first 18 years of their lives, we tell kids that they are great just for being themselves, and unique and special. Then, when they turn 18, they find out that that’s all a lie, and what a culture shock that must be! You’re no longer special and unique just for being you, your worth to others is only determined by what you can do for them.

This is how the world works, and we are unfairly setting our kids up for stress and disappointment when we teach them that it isn’t.

This is the main reason I love my kid’s dance troupe so much. Their instructor demands perfection from them and then she shows them how to achieve it. There are no medals for showing up and no one is wonderful just on account of being.

Medals go to the best dancers and dancers are wonderful because they work their asses off and GET IT RIGHT. Recently, a crew from our studio won the top award at a competition, and Steph came in and absolutely chewed their asses off. They blew several key parts of the routine and the fact that they “won” didn’t mean shit to her. They won because everyone else sucked, and that’s not winning.

Steph puts these kids though workouts that are so physically demanding they vomit and cry. These are 7 – 12 year old kids! My son is proud that he did burpees until he puked and then picked himself up and kept going. The kids love it! They love seeing the standards for achievement set so high, and then achieving them, even if it takes hours and hours of practice.

There is literally NO OTHER adult in their life that requires them to work that hard. School track meets? Everyone gets a medal. Bullshit. The Fun Meet at the swimming pool? Everyone gets a ribbon. Bullshit. The Talent Show? Everyone wins a prize. Bullshit.

Dance class? It’s pure competitiveness, and the effect it has on my children is absolutely marvellous. What have we lost in our culture when we tear down the strong and the resilient and the ones willing to work and work and work just so the weak can feel good about themselves for a fraction of a second, because really, that fat kid who can barely launch himself over the vault, how good does he feel with his stupid medal?

Kids aren’t dumb.

We owe it to them to reward the strong and encourage the workers and congratulate the ones who are willing to try and try and try again.

Medals for showing up? Life doesn’t hand out rewards just because you got to work. The sooner our kids get that, the better off we will all be.

This is good JB. I had nothing to add to Matt’s essay a few weeks back, but I see now that was because I lacked some perspective. I think you’ve successfully added to what Matt was trying to say without contradicting him.

I should add, though, that trying to tell anyone in the manosphere that they should use chivalry is like telling feminists to let men take advantage of them. I nearly had a truly base instinct reaction when I read the final part there.

I have never used game in any serious way. I believe I understand the concepts quite well, but I’ve never done the whole Roosh 100-approaches try-to-get-numbers thing.

Based on my understanding, the purpose of game is equivalent to make-up, push-up-bras, corsets, spray-on-tans, colored/highlighted hair, etc… It’s just a method for manipulating female attraction triggers just as altering the female appearance plays with base male attraction triggers, nothing more.

As such, there’s no way game was even intended to help men discriminate between “good” and “bad” catches. It cannot do that. In fact, the sole purpose seems to get men on the positive side of relationship frame so they have some measure of control of their sex lives.

Without game, it is not unusual for men who never marry to remain virgins their entire lives. This is an indescribable tragedy of a life that frankly I can’t expect a woman to understand because the sex drive that men have is just not experienced by women.

So, I think we’re speaking tangentially there. Game isn’t supposed to weed the crazies out, it’s supposed to help put men on equal footing in the sex game.

Dire Badger

I have…READ about game, a bit, mostly when i got active in the manosphere a while back, but as i read it I realized something.

I don’t know if I would be considered a ‘natural alpha’, a ‘I don’t give a shit beta’ or an Omega, or Gamma, or something along those lines.

Essentially, I am just… ex military. I like having a full-time female, but when I want to get laid I just…do. But unlike Roosh’s ‘natural alphas’ It is totally NOT central to my existence.

I kinda have to reject the titles of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ and ‘gamma’ and all that entirely…they do not adequately reflect reality. (at least IMO, then again, I don’t have much use for ‘game’ as such)

The closer analogy would be ‘dominant’ and ‘submissive’. and I think they are more mental than physical or clothing or anything else. If you are dominant, you are in control… of your environment, of yourself, of your women, of your behavior, of your peers, and of anyone that you approaches you. Men, and especially women, react to that dominance instinctively.
‘Creeps’ are men that project dominance and control without having self-control. it’s sort of an uncanny valley for girls especially.
‘braggarts’ are submissives that are still trying to convince themselves that they are dominant instead of simply BEING. They come across as overconfident instead of dominant, and repel people.

Submissives, however, constantly have to seek the approval of others… not for what they DO (which is entirely natural for doth dominants and submissives) but for what they ARE. In girls this is generally an attractive trait, but in men it is sometimes described as ‘beta’ or ‘omega’ behavior. It is not attractive, and it is taught behavior… very few males are naturally submissive, just as very few women are naturally dominant.

It seems to fit reality a lot better than the whole ‘people are like dogs’ philosophical underpinings of the ‘PUA movement’.

Dire Badger

Note that i am not trashing the PUA movement… they have made more and greater gains in understanding and manipulating human psychology in the last ten years than in nearly 200 years of ‘serious’ psychologists before that.

I am just saying that they are like practical sailors… they have learned what works and what does not through hard and intense study, but do not have a real strong grasp of some of the REASONS that they work… Sort of like Galileo creating the first really strong (30x) telescope without having any understanding of photons, light wave theory, or physics,

Moses

This is a weak spot for you JB. I learned game and also how to weed out the bad apples. It wasn’t by being chivalrous. Just careful observation.

Acting chivilrous to every woman is for fools. (Smart) men have learned that chivalry is a gift which should be given only to women who deserve it.

There are many ways to test if a woman is worth your respect or not:
– Does she disdain cooking or things domestic?
– does she self-proclaim as a feminist?
– does she claim to have been date raped?
– is she a lawyer?

If “yes” to any of these run for the hills. And for pete’s sake don’t treat her with anything approaching chivalry.

Here’s what to look for:
– does she present herself in a pleasing, feminine way?
– does she cook and not have an attitude about it?
– is she appreciative of small gestures?
– does she go out of her way to do small thoughtful things for you?

“Yes” to these questions means she’s s keeper.

Here’s a goodie: ask her what she thinks a man’s responsibility is in a relationship/marriage. Then ask what she thinks a woman’s responsibility is. The you go grrl types will be flabbergasted that anyone expects her have responsibilities.

I used game and a sharp eye to spot and marry a wonderful girl. She cuts apples and serves to me too. And i take care of her as her husband. It’s the natural way. Sadly, i think 9/10 American women have utterly lost the art of the feminine.

feeriker

– is she a lawyer?

Believe it or not, I’ve known two guys, both non-lawyers, who ignored common(?) sense and married lawyers. Needless to say, it didn’t end well at all for either of them. The word “moronic” is an inadequate adjective for describing this sort of foolishness.

Moses

Yep. My one friend who married a lawyer was taken to the cleaners by her in their divorce. That was after she cheated on him multiple times and had the gumption to ask for an open marriage. She set everything up just so to maximize the pounds of flesh to extract.

I didn’t have the heart to suggest that he paternity test his three kids.

the telling of that lie over and over again is one of my principal beefs with feminism.

But that’s essential. If they don’t repeat the lie ad nausem, it might provide an opening for truth and reason to slip in, and we can’t have that…

Confident women have no problem depending on men, because they know they themselves are dependable.

This is a key truth that feminists fear: dependence on men was marketed as weakness when in truth it–and the interdependence with men–is actually a strength. Whenever I hear a woman proclaim that she’s Strong, Confident, and Independent, I instantly suspect that she’s not really and is just talking to convince herself. Just the very act of making the proclamation says that underneath she’s Alone, Perhaps a Little Scared, and Worried.

This whole movement to “bolster” the self-esteem of children, mostly girls, is one of the downfalls of our society wrought by feminism. It’s pernicious. It’s an empty gesture that fails because ultimately the women and men those kids grow up to be all know, deep down, that it’s undeserved. Even the most solipsistic woman recognizes in her heart that faux esteem she was pumped up with isn’t really real. Unfortunately for most it only leads them into bad behavior and poor decisions in an effort to dispel that lingering ghost of self-doubt.

Which is, of course, again why the lies of feminism must be repeated over and over again. Give time for that kernel of doubt to grow and the edifice of feminism comes crashing down…

Ric

I would love to see you do a post on the growing MGTOW movement.

Lots of traditionalist in the MRA movement are causing problems because of their traditionalist notions, I’d love to see you’re post on if men should leave family life behind for good or try to fight for it.

I think JB would have trouble with that one, like most women in the manosphere.

It would be like asking me if I thought women avoiding any serious relationships until after a PhD is OK. It’s a conflict of interest. I want women to want relationships with me, so telling them to go pursue their intellectual interests until they’re 35+ and no longer sexy is not in my interests. However, I also don’t want women to simply accept stupidity throughout their lives and I want them capable of their own educated choices. The only answer that makes sense is to tell women to stop ignoring the inescapable biology in their lifelong pursuits.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the individual MGTOW.
Societally, I see the other shoe falling with collective MGTOW.

I understand the impulse to just throw your hands up and say “fuck all of this”. Take your toys and leave the sandbox.

I’d be willing to bet that MGOTW are not opposed to relationships and marriage and traditional familes per se, – they’re just opposed to handing over that much power to someone they are simply supposed to “trust” not to abuse them.

If it were legal for any white person to enslave any black person who accepted employment with them, how insane would you have to be as a black person to take a job offer from a white employer?

I’d be willing to bet that MGOTW are not opposed to relationships and marriage and traditional familes per se

I am an MGTOW, and I am not opposed to relationships, but I am totally against the traditional family. The MGTOW community on YouTube is largely of the same mentality.

My personal experience is that the women’s sphere has gotten enormously more simple over the last centuries, but the man’s sphere while less laborious stays complex and even grows in complexity. The world has MANY more conveniences now, and there is an underlying complexity that keeps it going. Somebody has to absorb a that complexity. You might have heard of Japan’s Herbivore phenomenon.. where significant percentages of young men have decided to opt out of the social expectation of MEN working their ass off. Its just not worth it.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, Its men who face the brunt of the complexities the world throws at a family..and women are happy to act dainty and recede into the background at such times.

In short, we cast off the provider role completely and whatever minimal protector role we were doing. Many of the MGTOW feel that women dont pull their weight and as such there’s no way we would enter into a traditional family even if all the laws were equitable. It may be ironic, but I personally wait for the woman that feminism promised. One that can stand next to a man and absorb the burdens that the world throws.

feeriker

It may be ironic, but I personally wait for the woman that feminism promised. One that can stand next to a man and absorb the burdens that the world throws.

LOL. Yeah, it’s like the “New Communist Man” that the propagandists in the old Soviet Union used to talk about, the ideological superman that would make the USSR the most happy, mighty, and successful nation on earth. The “woman feminism promised,” the New and Empowered Woman[TM], is every bit as mythical and impossible and will arise at about the same time the New Communist Man does.

Indeed.
There may be a few here and there..but the chances of finding one going through the hurdles modern society imposes is miniscule.
Thats why I have no problems with people who use Game to improve their situation.

I would still MGTOW even if it weren’t for the laws because women these days come out of university with four years of being told that all human history is the rape and enslavement of women, and the chip on their shoulder is so big the Saturn 5 couldn’t lift it. They define the word insufferable.

The laws only get in the way when I consider bring a woman from overseas over. However I can’t afford that option either, so the laws are a moot point.

feeriker

women these days come out of university with four years of being told that all human history is the rape and enslavement of women, and the chip on their shoulder is so big the Saturn 5 couldn’t lift it. They define the word insufferable.

Then you owe it to both them and yourself to go rape and enslave a woman. Wouldn’t it be a shame to let all of that indoctrination go to waste? By raping and enslaving a woman, you’re validating her world view and thus EMPOWERING her.

Now go out there and be the kind of MAN that the feminists want you to be!

freetofish

That’s kind of the beauty of going your own way though. I’m never going to have kids. Got snipped a long time ago. Hence, I have no progeny to give a single fuck as to what the world or society is going to be like after I’m pushing up daisies.

I have my pickup, Harley, cabin and fishing boat.Owe not a cent to anyone in this world and enough money in the bank to provide all the beer I need. I have a FWB that knows I have zero interest in marriage, kids or long term relationship.

I have always felt that a man is nothing more than the sum of his deeds, in the end.

We still talk about Achilles 4,000 years after his death, and Scipio 2,500 years after his, not because of how easy they made life for themselves, but because of how much of society’s burden they took on their shoulders, and how hard they strove for greatness.

Yeah, Achilles died young, but we still remember him to this day, and speak of his greatness. The impact that he had on this world is still rippling within humanity to this day.

Men like Leonidas of Sparta are the singular reason that western society even exist. If he hadn’t stood in defiance of the Persian hordes, Greece would have Medenized and western society would have died in its infancy. Leonidas died young, too, but they just made a movie about him a few years ago, about 3,000 years after he passed from this Earth.

So which is better?

A life lived in service to your own needs and desires, superficial and vanishing from the Earth the minute you die?

Or a life lived in service to something bigger than you, which carries on your name and remembrance far beyond your death?

I have no delusions of grandeur, but at least my family will remember me for a few generations after I die, and the things that I do on this world will last longer than my temporal existence. I find that I have a need for this – a need to know that before I die, that my works and acts will continue past the day of my death and that my having been here will have meant something to other people.

I know that you don’t care that your lifestyle, if widely ascribed to, would be destructive to the human condition. I don’t necessarily think that you have a duty or responsibility to care, and I would stand against anyone that tried to force on you an obligation that you don’t want.

What I don’t understand is how can you not care? Don’t you have a need to be meaningful? Or is that just a product of my youth; something which will leave me as I grow older?

Dire Badger

Oh crap, you are not another one of those nutball socialist ‘mHra’s that think the root of the world’s problems are ‘tradcons’, are you?

WHAT THE FUCK IS A TRADITIONALIST?

not one person who talks about the ‘horrors of traditionalists on the MRA’ has actually defined what they are. They occasionally point at manginas and white knights and those dumbass white nationalists and say ‘see! There they are!’, but what kind of ‘traditions’ are they even TALKING about?

Are you talking the 70’s hippy traditions? the 50’s Ward Cleaver traditions? the 1920’s Farmer traditions? the Warrior Tradition? The Tea Party?

As far as i know, the whole ‘evil traditionalists’ mra meme is just a load of bull from a few leftists trying to chop the MRA into easily-digestible pieces.

If you are going to create an enemy within the MRA, it would be better if you could actually ‘define’ what it is they supposedly do. Or are. or believe. or something.

I’m seeing more women mistake being sarcastic and egotistical for confidence. They think they the only way to elevate themselves and other women is to put men down. I hope they like cats. Lots of cats. because we’re raising a generation of future cat ladies.

APO

I see this a lot at work especially – I’m one of three men in a building of about 40-60 women. It’s the ultimate in girl power: “Look at me and my bad self and all my confidence”. They’re always pissing and moaning about each other but only if the other person is not in the same area – “look at what I have to deal with, I’m such a victim”. And they all date men that treat them like crap (further confirmation of being a victim). A few months ago, one even had her boyfriend cheat on her and she’s STILL with him. Incidentally, she’s a single mother and the boyfriend is NOT the father.
It’s an act. There is such a lack of self esteem in this building it’s awe inspiring. When not eye rolling sometimes I can lean back and enjoy the show.
BTW, I’m not saying they’re all like this but it’s amazing what a high percentage of them are.

“A woman who is strong and confident in her abilities to be a good mother, and who demonstrably IS a good mother has every right to esteem herself highly. ”

And to be esteemed.

Adam

1) Self-Esteem
Having self esteem as a negative is absurd. Having self-esteem is not same as having an inflated ego or pride. That’s the problem with feminists, they inflate their abilities and worth.

Self-esteem stops you from following your peers into acts of stupidity. If you do not have it you will either become part of the herd (a feminist or part of slut culture) or find yourself alone.

Females without self-esteem may end up doing silly things in the pretence of having it. They would wear sluty clothes, laugh excessively and try to get attention of men but the whole facade can be easily be undone leaving the girl in tears. These women tend to be insecure.

Self-esteem is good and in excess it becomes pride and an inflated ego.

2) Insecurity
You hit that on the nail. Emotional insecure women aren’t worth it. He confused his attraction shyness, inexperience and “pureness” with insecurity. A woman who hasn’t banged every man under the sun is of course going to be more attractive, and if she reacts more than your normal girl to your moves well I assure you it will inflate the man’s ego.

If that demure remains after years of marriage, well it would not be so attractive then.

3) But the idea “women don’t want high self-esteem” is kinda of correct if you take the word in the context he implies. But his quotes you mentioned are absurd.

Women want love more than respect. Men want respect more than love. These needs are not inclusive it just the genders tend to have stronger need of one over another.

I can live with a women that show little love to me, but is dutiful to my needs, our home, our children and respects me. I am not saying she hates just a low level of love but much care. I can love her with ease. But the concept of loving a women that loves me but does not respect is out of the question.

Likewise you can find plenty of women who can live with minimal respect, I mean a man who treats her with gentleness and kindness but dismisses her input in important matters. The video below explains it.

This is extreme and absurd case but I am just trying to get my point across and failing.

Anyhow you kinda of covered it and did an excellent job as normal. Don’t let that inflate your ego XD.

“Good old-fashioned chivalry. Open her door. Let her go first. Pull out her chair. Walk on the outside.”
+100

Clover

I think self-esteem is a problem in most young people today, not just women. I find myself regularly enraged by acquaintances who whine about not having what they want, but who do nothing to change their lot in life. My female friends want a nice guy (whatever that means) without considering what they bring to a relationship themselves, certainly. But I also have male friends who want to be respected even though they don’t work and their parents still do their laundry. Both are ridiculous and romantically repulsive.
I think anybody who doesn’t bring something to a relationship – be that romantic, platonic, or professional – beyond their sense of entitlement has no reason to esteem themselves at all. What we need to teach my generation is how to develop skills that bring something to the table, and not pretend a degree in victim-hood is ‘something’.
I’m sure Matt wouldn’t have a problem with a woman who actually had some reason to esteem herself, especially if she didn’t go on about it, but most people who have ‘high self esteem’ are just full of hot air. I can’t remember a time when anybody I knew who was actually competent talked about being ‘confident’ or ‘strong’, people who have genuine self esteem speak well of others, as their actions say enough about themselves.

Ed

/Good old-fashioned chivalry. Open her door. Let her go first. Pull out her chair. Walk on the outside. The second you get anything other than gratitude from a woman on that front, you know it’s time to move on.

That was an interesting article. It really helped me further understand a lot of actions, attitudes and comments that I’ve seen and heard in the past from both men and women.

Good stuff.

Troy

I think all women should read this article about by Mrs. JB. When I read the responses, most vitriolic ad homenims, to MAtt’s article I thought, “these idiots are only proving his point.” For example, if someone wrote and article say how Pink Floyd was a shitty uninfluential band, I wouldn’t get all bent out of shape and send them a hate speech. I would just chuckle to myself knowing that whoever wrote such a screed is probably an idiot. Additionally, none of the responses ever responded to his arguments with counterarguments. They simply reiterated the same bullshit: Matt is a misogynist, Male privilege, blah blah blah.

This response by Mrs. JB, IMHO, is how I expect rational people to respond. Going point by point, issue by issue and pointing out what she disagrees with why she disagrees with it, and then to give an counter argument. Through Mrs. JB’s analysis of her agreements and disagreements with Matt’s article, IMHO, provided additional insight into the issues of self esteem in women. I incorporated both articles into my matrix of knowledge. And, (and I think this is my point) when Mrs. JB shows, through the use of her reason, the errors of Matt’s analysis, low and behold, I fucking acknowledge that and incorporate that knowledge.

But feminist don’t respond like this. If you don’t believe as one with the hive then you are a rapey misogynist. It’s ad hominems and threats of violence. Acting like a snarky cunt (like that red headed chick in Montreal) isn’t going to convince me of your position.

Troy

Jesus, all those grammatical errors. I need more coffee.

Sterling

If being a mother is the most fulfilling thing in a woman’s life then what of the women that cant bear children?

Fuck chivalry. It boggles the mind that someone as perceptive as you thinks men automatically owe women anything. You are talking to men who have been browbeaten their entirel lives by female supremacists (of the male and female variety) and throughout this time, women have cheered and given the thumbs up. Cut this fairy tale crap out.

Just the woman you are dating, and it’s not because you “owe” her, but rather because her reaction is likely to be revealing.

TMG

There are hordes of women who hold feminist or even radical feminist beliefs yet still react just fine to chivalry, and still expect it, from all men. Not just the men they date. I have dated some of these women.

Rather than whether she accepts a man’s considerate gestures with gratitude, the test is whether she returns the favor. I know you encourage and celebrate reciprocal relationships between men and women, so I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.

The reason why I harp on this issue is because many women have no concept whatsoever of being the Queen who treats her man like a King. They think they are a Queen deserving of a manservant, and men have been so browbeaten, we often indulge this behavior.

I’ve found that very, very few even acknowledge the favor, let alone return it.

bree

“Feminism”, according to the dictionary (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie…you pick) refers to equality, not superiority, of rights. Interestingly, a man-hating feminist is an oxymoron. I know that some women do (incorrectly) claim to be feminists whilst “man-bashing”, but technically they are not.

Anyway, a woman who truly seeks independence will need a career. Because she is largely self-sufficient, she will be less likely to be a gold-digger. She doesn’t need to pretend to love you in order to charm you out of your hard-earned cash: she has her own. Feminism need not damage the rights or interests of men. We should seek to provide equality of opportunity (e.g. education, equal pay for equal work, etc) for men and women, and allow people to succeed (or fail, as the case may be) on their individual merits. In the end, can you really begrudge a hard-working, intelligent woman (such as my barrister mother) her legitimate professional success? And if so…is it because you envy her success?

You want to have your independent career as a hard-working, intelligent woman? Go right ahead. Just don’t expect everyone else to applaud and validate your choices when you discover the lies to be unfulfilling. Of course you think that anyone who criticizes feminism or feminists must “envy” that “success,” when the truth is no one else could care less about your success.

Feminism may or may not need to damage the rights or interests of men, but that is the inevitable result. Because it lives on lies. The myth of the “pay gap.” The lie of rampant “rape culture.” The decidedly unequal treatment of women and men in criminal and family courts. A man-hating feminist isn’t an oxymoron, it the truth about anyone who self-identifies as a feminist and many women who don’t, but who have marinated in the social feminist culture of the last 40 years.

You may tell yourself that it’s just about “equality,” but that would be a lie, too…

Goober

Beautiful reply.

Vladimir

In my experience, the older the woman is, the less self esteem she has. Everyone who I talked to about this seem to agree.

It’s common with men, too. It’s called the Krueger/Dunninger Effect, and the basic premise is that the less you know about a given topic, the more certain you are that you are an expert.

It’s why we get 20-somethings writing about how life should be lived, people who’ve never been in the military criticizing how a particular campaign was handled, Hollywood celebrities and Washington politicians telling people like me how I should be using my guns (because they used a fake one once in a movie), and rich white folks who have never been poor, going on about how poverty isn’t that bad and that the impoverished are just lazy.

I could go on for hours with examples, but the effect is that youngsters that know very little are often overly confident in themselves and their abilities, and older, more experienced people are less so, because they’ve lived long enough to understand their own lack of expertise, even though in having lived so much longer, they are infinitely more experienced and have infinitely more expertise than the aforementioned young braggart.

In essence, the more you know about something, the more you are familiar with the uncertainties in that particular system, and the less you are certain that you can control or handle it.

It’s why you see half finished hot rods in garages all the time – people get into the project with the utmost confidence that it is going to be easy, and the further they get into it, and the more they learn, the less confident they are that they can complete it, even though they are now more knowledgeable and capable of completing the job now that they’ve earned the experience.

Please don’t completely disregard the women lawyers/doctors/engineers. There mightn’t be many, but they do exist, and some of us are more valuable to society as professionals than as mothers. Perhaps some so-called ‘bad’ mothers would have been good engineers. I got top marks in my school leaving exams (in biology, chemistry, english, history and physics…not just in ‘soft’ subjects) and am now at law school. Male and female students alike sit exams. Exams are not devised or marked solely by women. Therefore, I have been successful in competition (for uni places) against male and female students alike. Your claim that women can never compete professionally with men is false. Some men are inferior to some women; some women are equal to some men; and some women are inferior to some men. It depends on the individual.

You know, when you despise lawyers as a class, and in particular, as the cancerous leeches on the belly of society that have twisted this country into a litigious mockery of freedom, it is awfully hard to ‘respect’ a woman that chooses that career as a ‘valuable member of society’.
socialism is the disease, feminism is the symptom, but lawyers are the tool.

The simple fact is, lawyers are monsters. You may protest and say “We protect people’ but in fact you only protect people from OTHER lawyers. American law was NOT designed originally to require the use of professional flappers, and every corruption to the constitution was accomplished to profit the legal profession.

Mark Twain was truly onto something. If every member of the bar association were executed, I wouldn’t shed a single tear. Even the ‘good ones’

You want esteem? Find a career that doesn’t depend on robbing and manipulating people.

And no, ‘Someone’s gotta do it’ is not an excuse. No one has to do it.
Despite the expensive waste of education, Lawyers are not my social equals. Lawyers, telemarketers, Advertisers, Prison Wardens, IRS agents, political officers, medical lobbyists, sensitivity trainers, and about a million more useless, worthless leeches who gain their esteem by how many people they have bilked and abused and how many lives they have ruined.
Brilliant.

James Thrice

Here, here. The perfect government is the absence of government because everyone takes responsibility for themselves.

Heh, not gonna happen. we need a military because other countries cannot take care of themselves. we need some sort of law enforcement for the same reason.

Of course, that’s pretty much it as far as what we ‘need’ from the government. basically a big dangerous stick to keep everyone acting civil. and as far as law enforcement, a sheriff does the job just fine. civil militia would work for the military as well, but even the founding fathers recognized the need for ‘the scariest fucking navy on earth’.

Sense of self-esteem is deeply rooted in our passed. Our early experiences either breed revenge, arrogance or strong re generation to achieve a high degree of self esteem.

pukeko60

JB, I think you are conflating real achievements with self esteem. The true measure of our time on this planet is what we have done. Not how we feel about it (Yes, I am alluding to “By your fruits you will know them”. A woman who has raised fundamentally decent kids deserves respect. A man who has done the remedial parenting after his kids were abandoned deserves it too.

As do those who do worthy work and make our lives better — from making stuff to serving. Honest work is worthy.

But self esteem? I have to like myself? Well, I see those people all the time. At work: on the ward where I see my patients, where there is all too often a huge disconnect between their self evaluaiton of their worth and their circumstances, and you have to get them of their pedestal (including the “I am a victim” one) to get them to move in a functional direction.

“Legitimate self-esteem. Being a wife and mother is in the cards for most women. But they can’t base their self-esteem on that, because they are living a lie about what self-esteem really means, and by pursing “careers” and “independence”, they are shit mothers and crappy wives.

Ergo, this false sense of esteem.”

“Most women eventually see at least half of the lie. Once they actually have children, they understand that to be a good mother is all that will ever mean anything to them, but they’ve fucked up planning their life and leave themselves with no real choices. They can’t afford to be good mothers.”

If “being a wife and mother is in the cards for most women” then it reasons that being a husband and a father is in the cards for just as many men. Yet, men can pursue “careers” and “independence” without it having a negative effect on their role as a husband or father…

Seriously?

It isn’t solely the mother’s responsibility to raise children or maintain a marriage; it’s a partnership, a two-way street. If a woman wants a career and sense of independence outside of the home, let her! Lord knows a number of men have been doing it, regardless of the effect it has on the family. Both genders need to step it up and stop blaming their faults on what’s between their legs.

Except all too often those mothers diminish the role of fathers by removing them–either before the fact or after–from their children’s lives, while trying to use those fathers as nothing more than a wallet.

You also miss the point. When women define their sense of self-worth by their independence and careers, they are by definition denigrating the roles of mother and wife as unworthy of esteem. This is the fundamental lie of feminism that Betty Friedan spewed forth, and a definite lie it is.

Lord knows a number of men have been doing it, regardless of the effect it has on the family

The “effect” it’s had on the family is to provide for the health, material comfort, and well-being of the family. Yet, you seem quite dismissive of that fact. I’m not surprised…

Anna

Why is it a man’s responsibility to provide health, material comfort, and well-being for a family? Why can a woman not take on those responsibilities, while a man takes on so-called womanly duties? They’re cultural constructs, not natural ones.

Honestly, I have no qualms with a woman who wants to be a good mother and wife and not pursue a career. But as a woman who does want to pursue a career, and probably become a wife and mother someday, I don’t want to be told I am “living a lie” and that I will have fucked up my plans in life and be left with no real choices.

Why is it a man’s responsibility to provide health, material comfort, and well-being for a family?

Because that’s what men do. And it’s what society not only expects, but demands of them. And feminists take ample advantage of it. These are not just “cultural” constructs, but responsibilities and obligations that men have shouldered since the dawn of human kind. And it’s enshrined into law, as well, in child-support legislation, and enforced at gun-point by the state.

Honestly, I have no qualms with a woman who wants to be a good mother and wife and not pursue a career.

Yet, though you intended it ironically, you, too, belittle such work as “womanly duties.” Feminism has always done so, proclaiming that because it is “unpaid” work it is not “meaningful” work (see Friedan). Which has always been a fundamental lie. Some couples can make the stay-at-home dad thing work, but for most couples, it doesn’t. Even Gender Feminists will come to resent and despise a stay-at-home husband, just as he will be undermined by not pursuing his natural role. And all the feminist re-education camps in the world aren’t likely to change that.

I don’t want to be told I am “living a lie” and that I will have fucked up my plans in life and be left with no real choices.

I’m sure you don’t. But sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting out the truth will likely leave you pain and heartache in the end. But I’m sure your career will comfort you…

Yes, it would be great seeing women carrying 50% of heavy furniture, breaking 50% of the walls that need to be broken, fixing 50% of the electrical wiring that needs to be fixed, and of course, paying 50% of the total expenses.

Strangely, the last woman to whom I proposed this, decided that washing dishes, cooking, and cleaning was not thaaat demeaning, after all.

Case in point, the role of the father in the family is more disciplinary than educational. You can see this clearly by the ever growing number of spoiled and self-entitled women, and sissy men that women are raising by themselves.
Besides, we don’t break our backs at work for our own sake, a single man can live as a king with far less than what is necessary to keep a family. We put up jobs we hate for the sake the wife and kids, our self-realization comes from seeing those under our responsibility faring well. Your self-realization comes from your career in itself. Because “Lord knows a number of men have been doing it”. Yes, totally the same thing. Not to mention, very noble, isn’t?…

Mike

“You’re looking for a Queen, who will rule by your side.”

Sorry, you can’t have two captains of a ship.

gerhard

This is amazing, and so true. The only problem is what can I do? time is running out. As a man if I want a traditional woman (not saying I do), the only way to earn or deserve and achieve it is to be a traditional man- i.e. good breadwinner. I dropped the ball on that but I’m picking it up, working on career. The other problem is where to find such a good women? They are in scarce supply I feel in America- at least relative to my level fo insignificant accomplishments. I have to work on game or at least being erotic and enticing, as well as not giving a sh/t. then maybe I can reeducate them. that sounds cultish but how the heck can people accuse such as being cultish when all of religion and ideology itself is guilty? I could go for a foreign woman (assuming I want one wife in the traditional way) and I do LOVE the european ones, and maybe will choose one who chooses me, but I do not want a woman of another race- I just do not. And lastly, beyond the scope of this article but relevant in some ways- to me if the damage to feminism was temporary, or even long term regarding discord between genders, alright so be it, but the Caucasian populations already demonstrate much lower fertility to others, that we need children or we will cease to exist or be ploughed under. Perhaps this was the purpose of feminism all along? Great threat- it leaves me sadly, like many other great works, somewhat enlightened (and I think for real- in combination with Forney’s article which is also a must read), but with little idea of a solution. I guess there are no quick fixes. Such an idea is childish, but it’s a start. Seeds were planted. This may change my behavior and thinking so I can create better karma. No matter what, if you are 100 percent right, it still must be stressed to the average man (to myself!) that we men must be bolder, stronger, more powerful, assertive, aggressive ,cocky, carrying buckets of self-confidence that says we don’t give a shit. If we don’t, we are lost, no matter what we know or say. We are talking about societal configuration here- and now it is sort of configured jungle rules. Anyway we can profit from the discord by learning more about our deeper male selves. We must be smart and we must work hard and we must be risk takers. If we don’t take risks we’ll be sleeping alone. Perhaps there will come times when we have to contradict everything we’ve been fed about women, gender, self-esteem, sexuality, sexual assertiveness, rape culture, etc. If so, society and those who engineered it are to blame. You are innocent in your natural desires and instincts. Always remember that- nature always trumps social conditioning and idealism, in virtue. By being a man, you are being most virtuous! Let society go about its dysfunctional ways. Grieve if you must but get not demoralized. Get demoralized if you must but stay committed. Your commitments are your source of power and strength over the long run. It is hard though but it is hard because it is hard on the inside. High expectations lead to the evil eye. I don’t know

Just discovered your blog through googling the ghastly article you were responding to. I agree with you that what’s his name didn’t get *everything* wrong, but you were terribly kind to him, considering hthe tweaker just said you shouldn’t even have the vote.

If women are, as he says, clustered in the middle as far as intelligence testing goes, that’s certainly no reasonable argument for denying women the vote.